Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:22:27.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of leaflet size and number on agronomic and physiological traits of mungbean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2010

S. SRIPHADET ,
P. KASEMSAP  and
P. SRINIVES
S. SRIPHADET
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Pathom73140, Thailand
P. KASEMSAP
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok10900, Thailand
P. SRINIVES*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Pathom73140, Thailand
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The current work was designed to compare 13 agronomic and four physiological traits in mungbean isogenic lines (ILs) with different leaflet sizes and numbers. The IL population was developed from a cross made in 2006 at Kasetsart University, Thailand, between two pure lines (one with five small and the other with seven large leaflets), followed by continuous selfing of the progenies until F6. The resulting four IL families each exhibited seven leaflet types, viz. three normal-sized leaflets per leaf, seven large leaflets, nine large, five small, seven small, nine small or 11 small. A trial was conducted in 2008 to compare the 28 ILs using a randomized complete block design with three replications. The large multiple-leaflet lines gave higher values for seeds/pod, pod size, seed weight, seed yield, leaf area, leaf area index and proportion of light interception, but fewer clusters of pods, branches and pods per plant than the small multiple-leaflet ILs. Seed yield/plant was positively correlated with pods/plant, seeds/pod, mean seed weight, light interception, leaf area and plant height at maturity. Leaflet size showed association with more traits than did leaflet number.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 353 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Board, J. E., Zhang, W. & Harville, B. G. (1996). Yield rankings for soybean cultivars grown in narrow and wide rows with late planting date. Agronomy Journal 88, 240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, G. W., Canham, C. D. & Lertzman, K. P. (1999). Gap Light Analyzer (GLA) Version 2.0: Imaging Software to Extract Canopy Structure and Gap Light Transmission Indices from True-colour Fisheye Photographs: Users Manual and Program Documentation. Burnaby, British Columbia/New York: Simon Fraser University/The Institute of Ecosystems Studies.Google Scholar
Gomez, O. J. & Frankow-Lindberg, B. E. (2005). Yield formation in Nicaraguan landraces of common bean compared to bred cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haile, F. J., Higley, L. G., Specht, J. E. & Spomer, S. M. (1998). Soybean leaf morphology and defoliation tolerance. Agronomy Journal 90, 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idinoba, M. E., Idinoba, P. A. & Gbadegesin, A. S. (2002). Radiation interception and its efficiency for dry matter production in three crop species in the transitional humid zone of Nigeria. Agronomie 22, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idress, A., Sadiq, M. S., Hanif, M., Abbas, G. & Haider, S. (2006). Genetic parameters and path co-efficient analysis in mutated generation of mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Journal of Agricultural Research 44, 181–191.Google Scholar
Jahan, Md. S. & Hamid, A. (2006). Effect of population density and planting configuration on canopy development and reproductive effort in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences 2, 122–126.Google Scholar
Khan, M., Nawab, K., Khan, A. & Baloch, M. S. (2001). Genetic variability and correlation studies in mungbean. Journal of Biological Sciences 1, 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowsurat, S., Srinives, P., Kasemsap, P. & Lamseejan, S. (1999). Effect of the multiple leaflet gene on agronomical and physiological characters of mungbean (Vigna radiata). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 133, 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, J., Singh, H., Singh, T., Tonk, D. S. & Lal, R. (2002). Correlation and path coefficient analysis of yield and its components in summer moong (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Crop Research 24, 374–377.Google Scholar
Kutty, C. N., Mili, R. & Jaikumaran, U. (2003). Correlation and path coefficient analysis in vegetable cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Indian Journal of Horticulture 60, 257–261.Google Scholar
Makeen, K., Abrahim, G., Jan, A. & Singh, A. (2007). Genetic variability and correlation studies on yield and its components in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Journal of Agronomy 6, 216–218.Google Scholar
Odabas, M. S., Uzun, S. & Gülümser, A. (2008). The effect of light interception and light use efficiency with different sowing time of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences 2, 87–91.Google Scholar
Office of Agricultural Economics. (2008). Mungbean. Department of Agricultural Extension. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
Roy, D. (2000). Plant Breeding: Analysis and Exploitation of Variation. Pangbourne, UK: Alpha Science International Ltd.Google Scholar
Shanmugasundaram, S. (2003). Present situation and economic importance of legumes in Asia and Pacific region. In Processing and Utilization of Legumes (Ed. Shanmugasundaram, S.), pp. 17–52. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.Google Scholar
Soehendi, R., Chanprame, S., Toojinda, T., Ngampongsai, S. & Srinives, P. (2007). Genetics, agronomic and molecular study of leaflet mutant in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology 10, 193–200.Google Scholar
Srinives, P., Hual-Alai, N., Saengchot, S. & Ngampongsai, S. (2000). The use of wild relatives and gamma radiation in mungbean and blackgram breeding. In Proceedings of the 7th MAFF (Japan) International Workshop on Genetic Resources. Part 1: Wild Legumes (Eds Oono, L., Vaughan, D., Tomooka, N., Kaga, A. & Miyazaki, S.), pp. 205–218. Tsukuba, Japan: National Institute of Agrobiological Resources.Google Scholar
Sripisut, W. & Srinives, P. (1986). Inheritance of lobed leaflets and multiple leaflets in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Thai Agricultural Research Journal 4, 192–199. (in Thai with English abstract).Google Scholar
Sung, F. J. M. & Chen, J. J. (1989). Changes in photosynthesis and other chloroplast traits in lanceolate leaflet isoline of soybean. Plant Physiology 90, 773–777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomooka, N., Vaughan, D. A. & Kaga, A. (2005). Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). In Genetic Resources, Chromosome Engineering, and Crop Improvement: Grain Legumes (Eds Singh, R. J. & Jauhar, P. P.), pp. 319–339. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Weinberger, K. (2003). Impact Analysis on Mungbean Research in South and Southeast Asia. Final Report GTZ Eigenmassnahme No. 99.9117.5. Shanhua, Taiwan: AVRDC.Google Scholar
Wells, R., Burton, J. W. & Kilen, T. C. (1993). Soybean growth and light interception: response to differing leaf and stem morphology. Crop Science 33, 520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar